ReviewBJPsych open2025
A mapping review of studies exploring the barriers and facilitators to a dementia diagnosis through an intersectionality lens.
Review in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Navigating the Threshold: Barriers and Facilitators to Accessing Primary Care Among People Living with Dementia-A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- The experiences of living with dementia within an under-served geographical area: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.Age and ageing · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping intersectionality in dementia care research: a decadal scoping review.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Pooled it
- ["No shows" in dementia diagnostics: qualitative perspectives of patients and caregivers after a positive case finding by general practitioners].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Article
- A mapping review of studies exploring the barriers and facilitators to a dementia diagnosis through an intersectionality lens.BJPsych open · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPromoting a 'timely' diagnosis is a global policy directive.
aimsThis review adopts an intersectional approach, visually mapping the existing literature to highlight gaps in the evidence base on barriers and facilitators to dementia diagnosis.
methodA systematic approach was undertaken, following the PRISMA guidelines, updating previous reviews. The literature search was conducted on PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete and Scopus. In line with mapping review methodology, we report the current state of the literature by describing the number of studies that outline barriers and facilitators to seeking help for a dementia diagnosis, split by social categorisation.
resultsOn the 7 June 2024, a total of 45 studies were identified. Our mapping demonstrated the majority of studies were derived from high-income countries and did not specify whether they were exploring barriers and facilitators through a specific social lens. Ethnicity was one of the few social categories where a range of evidence was reported. Other categories, such as socioeconomic status, gender and sexual orientation, received limited research attention.
conclusionsOur mapping review suggests the large body of work within this field tends to treat people with dementia and their carers as homogenous and androgenous groups. To better inform this key policy directive, studies are needed that explore the influence of social determinants on people's experiences of seeking a dementia diagnosis. Such work would create a richer, more nuanced evidence base that better elicits ways of addressing inequalities and inequities that arise at this key stage of people's dementia care journey.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.